By Josh Sager
The mainstream media in the United States currently prizes
neutrality in their reporting over virtually all other values. The American
media’s neutrality in reporting manifests as their giving equal credence, focus
and criticism for all sides of an argument, without passing judgment as to the
validity of the argument. While acting as the neutral reporter, the media
simply reports what the different sides of a debate assert, and does not act as
fact-checker; the neutral reporter trusts the different sides of an argument to
present factual arguments and acts simply as a debate moderator (asking
questions and ensuring that the answers are heard by the audience), rather than
a journalist.
When talking about neutral reporting, it is very important
to differentiate it from the idea of objective reporting. Unlike with neutral
reporting, objective reporting comes from giving no side of an argument an
advantage, yet holding all sides to the facts. Any misstatement of the facts or
attempt to obfuscate the issues by any side of the argument is challenged by
the objective reporter. The ideal media acts as objective reporters, not
neutral reporters, and serve as the impartial referees which hold all
politicians to the facts—ensuring that citizens are able to rationally
determine accountability for their politicians.
While neutrality is sometimes a commendable and beneficial
component of an unbiased media outlet, it can easily become a form of bias. In
situations where an argument is between a rational individual and an irrational
individual—rather than two rational actors—neutrality is heavily biased in favor
of the irrational arguer. When the neutral media does not fact-check
politicians who attempt to argue using nonsensical or nonfactual arguments, it
allows politicians to promote arguments with no real basis in fact.
A non-factual argument, while incorrect, is often far easier
to perpetuate than a rational argument; non-factual arguments are based upon
fictions which are tailored to support the argument, and reject all opposing
evidence. In the absence of fact-checkers, the fictional constructs of
non-factual arguments can easily trick the uninformed into supporting policies
which cannot work in real life, and have little basis in reality.
A neutral media, like the one in the United States, provides
the perfect medium for the propagation of non-factual arguments. By endlessly
repeating all sides of an argument, without checking to see if the arguments
are based in reality, the neutral media gives credibility to nonsensical
arguments. The neutral status of the media creates the public perception that the
sides covered by the media are factual and rational. Unfortunately, the credibility
given to nonsensical arguments when they are repeated by the mainstream media
allows for non-fictional arguments to be mainstreamed in ways which would be
impossible with an objective media.
Probably the greatest example of the distortive effect of
neutrality can be found in the modern debates over tax cuts. Large segments of
the Democratic Party and the entire Republican Party have argued that tax cuts
are needed to bolster the failing economy and promote growth; this is a
falsehood, and has been used to promote terrible economic policies. It is true
that some tax cuts, in some situations, can spur economic growth, but this is
not always the case. It is common knowledge among economists that tax cuts are
not the economic panacea which they are portrayed as by politicians, but the
media continues to perpetuate this falsehood simply because politicians claim
it to be true.
Recent Examples of Situations Where Neutrality has become
Biased:
·
Claiming that Washington gridlock is
bipartisan—While Washington is always engaged in argument, the modern
Republican Party has acted to obstruct everything within their power; this obstruction
is not bipartisan, and is not normal.
·
Portraying Obama as a radical liberal—Regardless
of what many claim, Obama is not a radical liberal. Obama is a center-right
politician who holds many of the same views/supports the policies of the
Republican Party of the late 20th century.
·
Not debunking Republican “Job Bills”—The
Republican Congress has passed numerous tax cuts which they have called jobs
bills. Despite this label, studies of these bills have shown that they create
no jobs and are “Jobs Bills” in name only.
·
Not calling the US drone program extreme—Both
parties support the use of drones to kill suspected terrorists, even if the
suspects are Americans; this policy
is extreme and an abrogation of contemporary due process, yet it is not
questioned in the media. Just because both political sides consider targeted assassinations
a non-issue, the media fails to point out just how objectively aberrant the
policy is.
·
Calling global warming controversial—When
politicians assert that that global climate change is a controversial theory, the
media has consistently refused to point out that global climate change is accepted
scientific fact. A vast majority of scientists (essentially all scientists
not employed by extraction companies) agree that global climate change is real
and man-made.
If Americans wish to have a functional government which
passes fact-based policy, we must demand that our media not only refuse to take
sides in their political reporting but also ensure that all politicians base
their policies upon factual arguments. Unless our politicians are forced to live
within the facts by the media, they will be able to convince the public to
support irrational policies. The media is not only the neutral mouthpiece for
politicians to sell their policies, but the institution from which accountability
is created.
Neutrality between the liar and the truth teller is not
actually neutral (not that the sides are usually this clear-cut), but rather a
form of bias which threatens to allow the liar to portray their lies as truth. The
media in the United States must recognize this crucial distinction and begin to
return to its role as the objective referee. Unless the media begins this
return to its roots, it will likely become little better than an organization
of stenographers, who are merely used to spread non-factual political
propaganda.
